Flashpoint Middle East

[Holden]

I’ve been a long time Axis and Allies player but I’ve been craving a modern take on this otherwise fine series of games. Something similar to Fortress America but maybe a bit more grounded in reality. So I’ve decided to design my own game. But I won’t be working completely from scratch.

Years ago I acquired an AA expansion game titled “Middle East Combat” http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17151. This game featured a new map of the Middle East with the Red Pact of Iran and USSR taking on the Triad: Saudi-Egypt, Iran & Turkey. Special rules covered insurrections, oil fields, cruise missiles, laser guided bombs, chemical weapons and host of other considerations. The game played quite well and was a blast but its looking a bit dated now. I thought I’d spruce up the design and add my own elements along the way.

I started this thread in order to air my ideas out and receive criticism, feedback, suggestions and wisdom so that I can make the best design possible. Over the next few posts I’ll be introducing some concepts and ideas I have for the design. This will include the units in the game and the map.

Thanks in advance for your support.

[Holden]

The first thing I decided I needed was a name for my project. As you have not doubt surmised (from the title of this thread) for now I’ve settled with: FLASHPOINT MIDDLE EAST. I think it’s kind of catchy and it isn’t likely to be confused with other games (although there was that Flashpoint: Golan war game by Victory Games).

If anyone has other suggestions for a title I’d love to hear them.

[Holden]

Here is the basic outline of the game: The game takes place in the near future (well say 2015-2020). Political pressure and unrest at home has forced the USA to remove itself from the Middle East theatre (perhaps the United States is embroiled in some kind of conflict with China) although they still support Egypt, Israel & Saudi Arabia (which isn’t really represented directly in this game. Players can assume that America’s support has enabled these countries to achieve the military muscle that they demonstrate on the board). Russia, after decades of turmoil has stabilized itself internally and now looks to involve itself in the world stage again. Russia has shown a renewed interest in the Middle East and has backed Iraq (perhaps filling a void left by a departing America). Russia has also paved inroads with several bordering countries surrounding the middle east including: Yemen, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kazakhstan & Uzbekistan. These are countries that were once holdings of the USSR during the cold war and have recently “come back into the fold” so to speak. Opposing these two nations are the countries of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (Saudi Arabia and Egypt are played as one nation).

The stage is set for these two opposing factions to wage war against one another all across the Middle East. Iraq is strong economically and militarily but is surrounded on three sides by enemies. Russia has a powerful military, is relatively safe from invasion and may choose when and where to attack. But Russia must act quickly before Iraq is overwhelmed. Iran and Turkey are both have to worry about an invasion from Russia while Saudi Arabia-Egypt must balance attacking Iraq with supporting her allies to the north. Each nation has the opportunity to invade any of the neutral regions on the map (which defend themselves with their own forces) but if that invasion fails the neutral country will automatically ally itself with the opposing faction. Nuetral nations offer the chance to claim additional resources as well as victory cities and oil fields.

There are two means of achieving victory. An economic victory occurs when one side controls a set number of oil field regions (the number will depend on the final disposition of the map). A political victory occurs when a set number of victory cities are controlled by one side (again, this is dependant on the map).

The game will play out in the same manner as Axis and Allies. That is to say: Develop Tech, Purchase New Units, Combat Move, Non-Combat Move, Place New Units, and Collect Income. Combat will be resolved in the familiar manner and the units will have similar capabilities.

Anyone have anything to add so far?

[Holden]

Here's what I've done with my map so far:


As you can see I still have a lot of work to do. I have some interesting design challenges ahead of me. For example:

1)   How big do I big should I make the regions? Some spaces are necessarily small (Israel, Kuwait). While others are rather large (Saudi Arabia, Iran). The larger regions will be broken up into several smaller spaces. Exactly how big these spaces should be and what their composition should be is proving to be vexing. Make them too small and there’s too much territory on the board. If I make them much larger than the smallest regions then that messes up with game balance and raises other issues. Should I attempt to chop up the larger countries according to political districts or just slice them up evenly?

2)   What should I name the regions? Some of the regions will be named for the country they represent (Israel, Kuwait) while other regions will only be a small part of a larger nation. Should I use district names or geographical names? You can already see a little of that if you look at Egypt. The area east if the Suez canal I named Sinai (geographic region) while if you look up near Russia I’ve got an abstract “Southern States” which is simply an amalgamation of several smaller countries rolled into one.

3)   Should I have blow up boxes off to the side for the smaller regions? 2nd edition Axis and Allies did this and many players never used them (some did though). AA Revised had those numbered cards with small numbered chits to achieve the same thing (in a more generic way). What area peoples thoughts on this?

4)   Should I put the game charts, build area, turn sequence the above mentioned holding boxes and/or any other information directly onto the board? If so where? The southern part of the board (Sudan, Egypt and the bottom right portion of the Arabian Sea) looks like a good spot.

5)   Should I put neutral region unit strengths directly on the board? The advantage everyone can see what they have to deal with without looking up a separate chart. The disadvantage is that it may clutter up the board. What about set-up information? Personally I tend to frown on this kind of this put right onto the board but what do others think?

6)   How many victory cities should I put on the board and what criteria should I use to select them? Each country should have at least two to start with (all of the capitals will be victory cities). Should some regions have two or more victory cities (making them that much more important than other regions).

7)   Same as above for oil fields.

8 )   Should I put geographical features on the map? Things like mountains, deserts and rivers could be added. If these things were added, should they affect game play or be there for appearances purposes only? If I add Mountains ranges and rivers, should I put them IN regions or put them bordering regions?

Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.

[Emperor_Taiki]

This is a pretty sweet idea, and nice map!

My first thaughts on it though, because you said you wanted to make it realistic, is that in 2015-2020 thier is still likly to be 20,000-40,000 US soldeirs in Iraq, (even if their is some conflict with china(unlikly), as that would most likly be a naval conflict) therefore Iraq proabaly would not have much Russia influence. I feel Russia has much stronger ties with Iran, and Iran has strong ties with Syria, and doubt Iran would ally with saudi-arabia(sunni-shia/historical competion/competion for oil/different realtionship with US). One interesting idea is that you could make the alliances varaible each game, which would increase playbilty and perhaps add some stratagy. In this region of the world it is my understanding that a large part of the conflict is over oil pipelines as well as tension between NATO and Russia. If you expanded you map eastword and northward just slightly I thing this would add alot to the possiblites of your game. Eastword you could includ all of central asia, which has a lot of conflict aswell as bordering potential super powers such as Chine and India. If you expand North word you could include Ukraine, and purhaps even poland and czech republic which expands yourgame to include the issues of the anti-missle defence and Russian expansion. there are also Russian military forces in turkmenistan, if you want to make that red.

[Holden]

I didn't want to put the game too far ahead into the future because I don't want to include things like hovercraft and other more advanced tech. I want to use pretty much current modern day tech. In order for my story and timeline to work some extremely drastic events need to take place that affect the US and remove them from the picture.

I did orginally think of doing the game where there are no teams to begin with and everyone just rolls along fullfilling their own agenda (ala risk) and making their own alliances. But I like the idea of two sides. Besides the basic set-up is provides a really interesting dynamic (with Iraq in the middle and Russia on the outside and the other three nations in-between).

Iran is not so much allied with Saudi Arabia as it is also opposed to Iraq (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

I don't want to expand the map too much. I had orginally wanted to extend northwards to include more of Russia and the Ukraine, but I think I like the tightness of it now. Eventually I want to do a global game. 

As for Turkmenistan, I wanted to have a neutral buffer zone between Russia and Iran.

[Holden]

Here's the lateset progress of the map. I pretty happy with the results so far. I've just been fiddling with the appearance of the text.

[CWO Marc]

Nice map.

The spelling of Israel and Saudi Arabia on the map need to be corrected.

The Crimean Peninsula is labeled as Ukraine (spelled Ukrane on the map).  It think that Crimea and the Ukraine are distinct territories.

One idea you might consider is to use white lettering on the darker map territories to make the names easier to read.  Black lettering shows up crisply against white and yellow backgrounds, but it can be tricky with other colours.

Good luck with this project -- it looks interesting.

[Holden]

Lateset version:

The initial text were simply working labels. The spelling was fixed as I went along (not saying there aren't anymore spelling errors in there somewhere).

The names of of Nations are in red with the regions within that nation labelled in black. Some nations comprise only one region (like Israel) while other nations only have one region represented on the map (like Romania and the Ukraine). The Crimean Peninsula is part of the Ukraine. I suppose I could label the region "Crimea (Ukraine)" or something as such.

I could have expanded the map northwards to include more of the Ukraine and Romania but then I risk losing a focus on the area where I want the fighting to occur. The same problem exists to the east with Afghanistan and Pakistan being only partially represented. Also, Sudan and Eithiopia are significantly curtailed. The cut off line has to be drawn somewhere.

The text is not going to be difficult to read once the map is blown up to its proper proportions.

Progress continues. Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia remain. Then the real fun of assigning IPC values and determining victory cities begins.

[Emperor_Taiki]

Your making alot of progess, good going. I would at least add Afghanistan and Pakistan, they are such an important part of this area today, i dont understand leaving them out. It would be cool to include the Ukraine and Mog, but I understand you have to limit the the scope of the game at some point. Just add Afhganistan and Pakistan. I would also bring the US back into the game otherwise the only countires with serious militaries will be Russia, Turkey and Isreal, along with maybe Iran or Pakistan. The US military has lots of cool techs that would be fun to have in this game. And I dont see how this game is going to be relaistic and give Iraq a powerful military or stable goverment without US assitance.

Also have you considered making the game 3 or 5 sided instead of the normal 2 sides? Four sided would probably turn the game into somthing similar to 2 sides, while 6 or seven would be to many sides for an A&A game.


Expanding the map to inlcude all of afghanistan and pakistan would also open up the Arabia Sea for Naval battles. Right now it seems that this game is going to be dominated by land warfare, having the Arbian Sea would really open up option in the game. it would be a shame if naval units were not used in this variant, after all they are half the units in the game.

[Holden]

Afghanistan and Pakistan are partially represented on the map. I'm going to assume for the purposes of my scenario that they are too distracted by India to get too involved in the Middle East.

The USA is indirectly represented in the game by their backing of Saudi Arabia. For all intents and purposes Saudi Arabia is the USA in this game. Once again, the US is largely concerned with events unfolding elsewhere in the world.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Russia is supposed to be backing Iraq heavily. With US resolve and morale weakened to the point that they pretty much abandon Iraq and the middle east (stretching it. I know), Russia steps into the power vacuum and re-arms the Iraqi forces.

I did consider making this an everyone sticks all game and it will still be very possible as a variant in the future. However, in my experience what tends to happen if you don't have teams is that someone always gets shafted facing two or three opponents. Also, individual players encourages a turtling strategy. No one wants to make bold, aggresive moves for fear of being ganged up on or weaken themselves and leave themsleves vulnerable to others. In addition there always seems to be that one player who manages to avoid any major fighting in the early and middle part of the game. At the end, after everyone has been weakened due to fighting eath other, the player who has been avoiding conflict and building his/her forces steps in and dominates. There is also a potential for king making in free for all games. king making is when a player can't really win a game but he/she can decide who can. You kno - "Well, you've annoyed me the whole game so I'm throwing everything I have at you even though it will mean utter defeat for me also, I know you won't win!". Finally, free for all games are much more difficult to playtest and achieve a real game balance.

Team vs team, scenario type games are just easier to design in the beggining. So that's what I'm starting out with.

You are correct about the focus on ground combat though. I am thinking about incorporating some victory point or IPC type areas at sea (offshore oil fields, shipping routes etc...).

Oh here's the latest version of the map by the way:

[Brain Damaged]

Wow awesome game concept. Keep up the good work.+1

[Emperor_Taiki]

THis map just keeps getting better and better!

I still think you should include all of AfPak and the all of the arabian sea aswell as makaing the sotryline more beleiveable, but I guess you can change or add that later after some playtesting.

What are the rules for combat going to be, you should probably make them different so that this game is even more unquie and so you capture the feel of what modern conventional warfare is like, aswell as adding rules for some sort of unnnconvential war.
I think you going to have to rework the rules for naval combat, especailly the carrier and battleship peices, since battleships are not used anymore and only Russia has aircraft carriers. This is why you should include the Arbaian sea, India, and the US. The US has awesome carriers and it is  beleivable that India will soon have carriers. The Arbian Sea gives everyone a place to fight in with their navy.

Also, what are think each turn will represent in terms of time?

I usually consider a turn in A&A to be 3 too 6 months, but this game has a more limited scope and everything in modern war is faster, so what is each turn going to represent?

[Brain Damaged]

What unit types are you planning on using?

I think you should name the game Jihad.

Don't forget the suicide/car bombers

[Holden]

At first the rules for combat are just going to be the standard Axis and Allies rules with some new units thrown in. I do have ideas and plans to make my own set of rules, but that going to wait until later.

I intend to use the following units

Infantry    C3 A1 D2 M1
Mobile Inf   C4 A1 D1 M2
Artillery    C4 A2 D2 M1 (infantry support)
Mobile Art.   C5 A2 D2 M2 (infantry support)
Tank      C5 A3 D3 M2
Heavy Tank   C6 A4 D3 M2

Helicopter   C8 A2 D3 M4 (tank hunter)
Fighter      C10 A3 D4 M6
Bomber   C15 A4 D1 M8
Missile      C5 A4 D0 M8 (one use)
Cargo Plane   C10 A0 D1 M8 (transport 1 inf or 1 other unit during non-combat)

Submarine    C8 A2 D2 M2 (first strike, submerge)
Destroyer   C8 A2 D2 M2 (sonar)
Cruiser    C12 A2 D2 M2 (bombard)
Battleship    C22 A4 D4 M2 (bombard, 2 hits)
Carrier    C15 A1 D3 M2 (transport 2 non-bomber air units, 2 hits)
Transport   C8 A0 D1 M2 (transport 1 Inf + 1 other unit)

I wanted each turn to represent about 1 week of fighting however, this is one of those fudge factors that comes up in gaming. In reality there would little to no time for construction of major combat units in the modern war I’m trying to simulate. When you consider the entire war could be over in a matter of weeks, how can a nation possibly build entire infantry or tank divisions, squadrons of aircraft and/or fleets of warships? If you really want to do it realistically each nation should start with an order of battle and then each turn would receive set reinforcements as reserve formations are prepared (something like Axis & Allies D-day). After the first few turns all the forces would be in play with little or nothing following.

The problem is the collecting and spending of IPC’s is such an elegant and interesting mechanic, I don’t want to lose it. So I’ll just call it a flexible reserve activation method.

More to come.